> On 27 Apr 2017, at 04:01, Luke Dashjr <l...@dashjr.org> wrote: > > On Wednesday 26 April 2017 7:31:38 PM Johnson Lau wrote: >> I prefer not to do anything that requires pools software upgrade or wallet >> upgrade. So I prefer to keep the dummy marker, and not change the >> commitment structure as suggested by another post. > > Fair enough, I guess. Although I think the dummy marker could actually be non- > consensus critical so long as the hashing replaces it with a 0. > >> For your second suggestion, I think we should keep scriptSig empty as that >> should be obsoleted. If you want to put something in scriptSig, you should >> put it in witness instead. > > There are things scriptSig can do that witness cannot today - specifically > add > additional conditions under the signature. We can always obsolete scriptSig > later, after segwit has provided an alternative way to do this.
You can do this with witness too, which is also cheaper. Just need to make sure the signature covers a special part of the witness. I will make a proposal to Litecoin soon, which allows signing and executing extra scripts in witness. Useful for things like OP_PUSHBLOCKHASH > >> Maybe we could restrict witness to IsPushOnly() scriptPubKey, so miners >> can’t put garbage to legacy txs. > > They already can malleate transactions and add garbage to the blocks. I don't > see the benefit here. Witness is cheaper and bigger > > Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
